From Iconic Gestures to Everyday Value: 30 Years of Bridge Design
Martin Knight reflects on Calatrava, the Millennium boom, and how purpose, place and carbon are reshaping what “great” looks like.
Thirty years is a long time – for me a whole career as an architect – but I find it interesting to look back a little further to understand the context for my entry into the world of bridge design. In 1992 the Royal Institute of British Architects (RIBA) hosted a major exhibition of Santiago Calatrava’s work, at 66 Portland Place in London. This lavish celebration of the 41-year-old Spanish architect and engineer’s extraordinary designs featured paintings, sketches, photographs and, most memorably, models of his unique bridges and structures (image Felipe II Bridge, Calatrava; or similar Calatrava 1990–1994 structure if unavailable for use).
The work dazzled with its confidence and beauty but was easily mistaken at the time, and since, as self-indulgent structural gymnastics. Yet the words which accompanied the imagery spoke passionately about urban regeneration and providing new public places. Calatrava spoke about creating a sense of common identity and pride for communities decimated by industrial decline or divided by 1960s transport infrastructure.
“I realise now the form was engineering and the function was architectural although, at the time, it appeared to me and to many others that the reverse seemed true.”
I realise now the form was engineering and the function was architectural although, at the time, it appeared to me and to many others that the reverse seemed true. The appearance of the work was immediate, yet its optimistic purpose often took years to take effect, if at all. It was the extraordinary style of the designs which simultaneously inspired architects and appalled engineers. To varying degrees, this different understanding – between the structural purity of an engineered form and its societal purpose, between scientific pragmatism and artistic optimism – has remained a feature of 21st Century bridge design ever since.
When bridge design became cultural ambition
Connected through their support for his controversial East London River Crossing, the Calatrava exhibition coincided with a famous seminar on bridge design held by the Royal Fine Art Commission (RFAC). This was chaired by the flamboyant Lord St John of Fawsley and attended by leading engineers and architects including Calatrava, Benaim, Leonhardt, Menn and Grimshaw. In debating how to best commission bridge design, issues of quality control and the perceived limits on visual excellence, the seminar brought aesthetics to the fore and defined what would become recurring themes ever since.
These two high-profile events focused attention on bridge design at a time when many cities sought to mark the approaching Millennium moment with some form of civic gesture, often competing against each other to achieve what became known as the ‘Bilbao effect’, courtesy of the Frank Gehry-designed Guggenheim Museum.
Motive, means and opportunity combined and the late ‘90s was a frantic time of design competitions, particularly for footbridges. Frequently set up to be architect-led, in the United Kingdom these competitions resulted in the construction of outstanding examples including the Millennium Bridge in London, the Gateshead Millennium Bridge and York Millennium Bridge as well as numerous failed competitions and unbuilt designs. Recognising the ‘Millennial party’ nature of the time, the Happy Pontist blog dryly observed in 2015 that the 1990s was a period of iconic designs “from which designers and their clients are still suffering a bit of a hangover”.
After the Millennium boom: carbon, cost, and a new definition of value
Although from time to time the party spirit is rekindled, the Post Millennium period brought a tightening of budgets and an increasingly mature understanding of the carbon cost of construction. In addition, the value provided by cultural identity and improved connectivity, especially for pedestrians and cyclists is better understood.
This understanding has led to a rich divergence in philosophy and styles, with the general trend moving away from the pursuit of ‘iconic’ solutions and towards structures which are more contextually sensitive and easy to live with. These forms exploit new manufacturing and analysis techniques and provide solutions with traditional materials, including wood, stainless steel and stone.
Engineers and architects in bridge design are increasingly focused on why a project is needed and who the beneficiaries will be, rather than defaulting to the extremes of flamboyant form or bland function dictated by expedient construction. Communities and stakeholders are increasingly influential in choices, so that they can arrive at solutions together.
“It is now understood and valued that great bridges create great cities and reinforce an urban identity, which is vitally important to people.”
It is now understood and valued that great bridges create great cities and reinforce an urban identity, which is vitally important to people. This was recognised by Calatrava and RFAC thirty years ago but now, if we are to build anew, the carbon and financial cost must be justified in terms wider than traditional business cases or journey time savings.
